News and commentary on recent advances in the quest by the environmental left to destroy the world's economy through the politicization of global warming (climate change) and the suppression of those who dissent from the "consensus"

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

A modest request to those who believe in anthropogenic "climate change"

Despite the name of this blog, some time ago many in the CoGW abandoned the exclusive use of the term "global warming" to describe current climate trends. "Climate change" is the preferred term now, since many weather events in recent years do not appear to fit the perception of what we would see on an unnaturally warming planet.

I will continue to use "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) to describe this ideology. Although atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase, global temperatures have more or less plateaued in the past decade. Since the plateau occurred at a warm average temperature, we've been treated to innumerable accounts of the fact that recent years have been among the warmest in recent history. So, despite the use of the term "climate change", it's clear that proponents are invested in creating the public perception that the earth is continuing to warm (and that such warming will soon accelerate out of control).

Climate change really is a term of art, because it allows CoGW adherents to insist that all weather -- wet or dry, hot or cold -- validates the AGW orthodoxy.

Floods in China: check. Drought in China: check. More hurricanes: check. Fewer hurricanes: check. Summer ice melt in the Arctic: check. Winter refreezing of Arctic ice that exceeds that which originally melted: check. Collapse of the West Antarctica Ice Shelf: check. Net increase in Antarctic ice: check. Record warm winter in 2006-2007: check. Record cold winter in 2007-2008: check.

This leads me to ask a question of those of you who believe that human activity is negatively and catastrophically impacting the earth's climate:

Is the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis falsifiable?

I am asking this within the context of the scientific method. Integrity demands that a scientist, when proposing a hypothesis, list the conditions whereby the hypothesis would fall apart:

We believe that this hypothesis sufficiently describes the reality we are studying, but if anybody can demonstrate any of conditions a, b, c, d or e, our hypothesis is fatally compromised and it's back to the drawing board.

So, AGW folks: can you name any condition (series of weather events, temperature trends, etc.) that would make you doubt the current orthodoxy, or are we witnessing the most bulletproof hypothesis ever?

UPDATE: After a quick Google search, I was pleased to discover that this question has already occurred to minds much greater than mine. As I composed this post earlier today, I had the folks at RealClimate in mind (among others). It turns out that Roger Pielke, Jr. tossed the following rhetorical grenade into the midst of a RealClimate discussion about how awfully cold Antarctica is right now:

There are a vast number of behaviors of the climate system that are consistent with climate model predictions, along the lines of your conclusion: “A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming.”

I have asked many times and never received an answer here: What behavior of the climate system would contradict models of global warming? Specifically what behavior of what variables over what time scales? This should be a simple question to answer.

Thanks!

The ensuing debate is pretty interesting.

Pielke followed up on the question in his own blog. The debate is pretty lively in the comment section over there as well.

A note about the frequency of blog posts

Real life often takes me away from blogging, so don't assume this site has been abandoned just because it's been a while since I last posted. Whenever opportunity and motivation converge favorably, I'll be here.

Al Gore, call your office

"To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."

-- NASA Administrator Dr. Michael Griffin, May 30, 2007 interview

To quote H.L. Mencken...

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken...

The urge to save [the planet] is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.

About the Heretic

I have degrees in computer science and meteorology, which instantly makes my opinions on global climate change more credible than those of Al Gore. Just a thought.

Myfirst postincludes a discussion of my motivations for doing this blog.

Contrary to stereotypes promoted by the AGW alarmists, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a paid shill of the energy industry. However, if you represent the energy industry and you wish to shower money on me in exchange for my advocacy, there is no need for a formal agreement. Just leave bags of cash on my doorstep and I'll be happy.

Contact

Private messages and post suggestions can be sent to the following address:

Carbon Brokers

A note about the Link classifications

I have done my best to classify the links into the stated categories based on my impression about the general thrust of each of these sites. Sites classified as 'Fellow Heretics' will not necessarily agree with me on all issues related to climate change -- they merely contain content that unapologetically diverges from the consensus. Sites classified as 'True Believers' are those that have accepted the essence of the AGW hypothesis -- but some present their views reasonably rather than in the hysterical fashion of the CoGW. The sites listed under 'GW/CC News' can often be allocated to one of the above other categories (mostly to the 'True Believers'), but I have separated them here because of their primary focus on news.